Public Bill Committee

[Martin Caton in the Chair]

Clause 54

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clive Efford: Before lunch, I was responding to the hon. Member for Northampton North, who is now approaching his place—just on time, unlike many of the trains that I am about to mention. He made a comparison with Scotland, which does not have clamping powers. I was talking about the Cator estate, part of which is in my constituency. It is close to a railway station, and the people there fear that they will suffer from commuter parking. The hon. Gentleman said that they do not seem to have that problem in Scotland, but that is a poor comparison.
I took the opportunity of the break to look up some figures that were at the back of my mind from when I was on the Transport Committee, about the problems caused by commuting around London. Nearly 70%—a staggering figure—of the train journeys undertaken each year in this country are related to people travelling to and from London. For people living around railway stations in the outer parts of London, commuter parking is a huge problem.
If Government Members were to go to any of the stations on the south-east network—certainly those around my constituency—they would find that local authorities have been forced to introduce restricted parking zones around stations because of commuters using free street parking and clogging up the roads. That was not only inconvenient for local residents, but was damaging to local businesses as parking spaces around town centres and local amenity stores were not available, and shops were being lost. It was therefore vital for local economies and local amenities that the issues were dealt with. In response to the point about Scotland seeming not to have such problems, it should be a question of what is suitable in each circumstance. We all want to deal with rogue clampers.
I have an extreme example of a chap I referred to on Second Reading, whom I would describe as a rogue clamper. He is a cage fighter who sits in his white van at the bottom of a little lane and when anyone dares to park on the little parking space at the end of that bit of private land, he comes up like a trapdoor spider, traps the car in, and then clamps it and demands immediate payment. I recently heard from one of my constituents that he leapt on and clamped a car while a disabled person, who had dared to park there for a few seconds, was stuck inside. We certainly want to regulate to stop that sort of rogue clamper, but at the same time we should consider the situation that people who live on the Cator estate might be placed in.
The estate has nearly 4,000 residents and is close to Blackheath village and the small town centre there, and to Blackheath railway station. The residents have experienced problems with people using the estate as a car park. They want to be able to allow people who need to go there to park on the estate and to allow people to pass through it if they need to. However, bearing in mind that an independent, not-for-profit amenity company runs the estate, they do not want to see their local roads used as a free car park for commuters intending to travel on trains via Blackheath station.
I refer to my earlier point. Given that many of the other stations experiencing similar problems have parking schemes that will not be affected by the Bill, will that make the estate a target for car parking, given that it might be easier for people to obtain free parking there if they can arrive early enough in the morning to find a space?

Gareth Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that under this Bill the local authority will be able to remove vehicles parked on private land will deal with at least some of the problems on the estate?

Clive Efford: I do, but I wonder about the practicalities of doing that for this estate. That is the problem—just what bureaucracy and cost are involved? At the moment, as the Minister described it, we have barriers at the entrances to the estate, but the roads are quite wide. It is part of the local road network out of peak times. So the idea that barriers can be put down on this estate to enforce the parking scheme is out of the question. The idea that the local authority will be able to pop down every time the Reverend Scott or someone points out that there is a car parked on the estate seems to me to be impractical.

Nicola Blackwood: I wonder whether the combination of CCTV and ticketing might help in those scenarios. Has that been considered by the community and, if so, what outcome has that had? It would be helpful to know.

Clive Efford: It would be helpful if the hon. Lady could tell me. We have just passed the clauses on CCTV, and I find it extraordinary that we should now be suggesting that CCTV might be the solution to the problem. We talk about restricting CCTV and then, with this one problem, say, “Oh, we’ll have CCTV to solve this issue”. That underlines the curious nature of this freedom Bill.

Tom Brake: I first point out that we are not restricting CCTV, but regulating it; there is a clear difference between the two. May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the Cator estate? In his remarks before lunch, which he has repeated, he said that access is restricted during peak hours. I would like to understand more about how that operates and whether those sorts of restrictions could not be used outside peak hours.

Clive Efford: There are barriers at certain exits on the estate, which are the attractive ones for rat-running. At one of them a part-time keeper is paid to operate the barrier, so that people approaching the estate from that direction can gain access. Obviously, there are people who will need to enter the estate and have a legitimate reason to be there. That is how it operates; the company is financed by contributions from residents on the estate. It is an awkward situation. That demonstrates what is being legislated for here. For good reasons—to deal with rogue clamping operators—we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and there is an undesired consequence for the Cator estate. The position that the Government have taken on this particular clause assumes that the clampers are always the aggressors, but we all know that drivers can also be intimidating and aggressive. The idea that communities such as the Cator estate would be able to operate a system that allowed them to enforce payment of tickets seems strange. They said in evidence that they accept the need to deal with rogue clampers, but they do not want to become the victims of rogue drivers who want to abuse the availability of parking spaces. That clogs up local roads and has a damaging effect on the community and local shops.

Tom Brake: Has the hon. Gentleman received representations from the cage fighter that he referred to earlier, who had been aggressed by a driver?

Clive Efford: I suspect that the cage fighter has probably not been aggressed. I have had no personal contact with the fighter, and having mentioned him today I hope that that continues to be the case. I have no intention of confronting him; we have officers to carry out such operations. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that a pensioner confronts him daily. It is probably the only time of day when he feels intimated.
I am slightly bemused by the idea of removing vehicles from private land. The Minister accused us this morning of coming up with a load of “what ifs”. Some Members may know that I used to drive for a living. I was one of the most highly respected drivers on the road—a London taxi driver. Wearing my former professional driver’s hat, I have more what ifs. I apologise if the Minister does not like them, but that is why we are here. What ifs are what happens in the real world, and we want to know if there are any unintended consequences to what the Government want to do.
 The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)  rose—

Clive Efford: Does the Minister want to intervene?

Lynne Featherstone: Only to say that I expect a lot of what ifs, and I shall answer them.

Clive Efford: It seems that we are empowering people with private land to move vehicles. What if the only thing to do with that vehicle, if it is impeding access to the land or movement around the land, is to move it on to the public highway? What if the public highway adjacent to the land is a red route? Who will be responsible for where the vehicle is positioned? What if there are yellow lines? What if it is left within the statutory restricted distance from a junction?
What if an accident occurs because the vehicle is placed too close to the junction? What if the vehicle is not placed within the statutory distance from the kerb by the person removing it from the land? If the vehicle is left in a restricted area, such as on a red route or on yellow lines, or within the statutory restricted distance from a junction, the police may tow it away. What if the vehicle is impounded? Who should pay for it to be released?
What if the vehicle is parked in an unsupervised car park and the barrier is lowered? On some council estates in my constituency, parking restrictions are enforced by barriers. Unfortunately, some people like the barriers and some do not. Minicab firms do not like the barriers; they get free parking for their cabs, but if the barrier is down they use a club hammer to smash off the padlock. In the real world, placing restrictions on land by using a barrier does not always work.
What if someone parks on the land when the barriers are up in order to pop to the shops and someone else comes to collect their car and lowers the barrier? There will be no one to release them, because no one is in charge of the land. Will the car be effectively impounded if there is no one to release it because a neighbour has put the barrier down? I can say that it happens, because it happened to me once when I was canvassing. What responsibility does the landowner have to ensure that someone is readily available to free a car parked on their land? What if no number is available? Where will people go to have their cars released if we allow a proliferation of barriers on private land? Will cars be effectively impounded?
What if a vehicle is removed from a piece of land and parked inappropriately—near an island, perhaps—or so as to impede an emergency vehicle on the highway? What if the brakes are not applied properly and someone moves the vehicle to a public highway on an incline? Who will be responsible then? The idea that someone can take responsibility for someone else’s vehicle simply because they own a piece of land, and can move the vehicle and put it on the public highway seems extraordinary. In the Transport Committee, we had a long debate about the new technology being put in vehicles—it is being advertised on TV now—which takes over when the vehicle gets too close to another vehicle. Who will be responsible for accidents if such equipment fails, causing the car to bump into another one? Will it be the owner’s insurer or the manufacturer of the technology?
Those interesting questions are all hidden consequences of what the Bill will do. If a handbrake is not applied to a vehicle that has been moved to the public highway and causes an accident, who will be responsible? Who will have acted irresponsibly in those circumstances? If someone goes away and leaves a vehicle on a piece of land for a long time and it needs to be moved, and a cost is involved in moving it, who will pay that cost? Will it become a civil matter in the courts? If someone has to pay the local tow truck to remove a vehicle from their land, will they have to recover the costs? A lot of what ifs arise from the clause.
The Crime and Security Act 2010 contained measures to deal with rogue clampers. The Government are wrong in where they are going with the clause. They need to think again. The clause contains elements that seem designed for what we all think of as a car park, but we must consider the variety of locations to which it will apply. By preventing people from using legitimate and properly managed enforcement agencies to carry out clamping, and preventing landowners such as the Cator estate from managing their land appropriately, we are making a serious error.
My local authority finds it cost-effective to have a private clamping firm enforce parking in all the different car parks around my constituency. I go on walkabouts with tenants and leaseholders—mainly of council properties, but also in other areas—where they show me the problems. I bring along council officers on some walkabouts and we discuss solutions to the problems on the spot. That works well, and people are happy with it.
I have been doing that for 14 years, and over the years one issue that we have identified is abandoned vehicles. We have more or less eradicated them now, although I appreciate that that is largely due to the increase in scrap metal values. Another issue is people parking illegitimately on somebody else’s land. The council’s response was to hire a contractor who put up clamping signs across all the bits of land, saying “If you park here, you will be clamped.” The problem was solved at very little cost for different pieces of land. There was no capital investment in barrier after barrier, which frankly some of the tenants or residents would smash up anyway, because they cannot be bothered to get out of their car, undo the lock and lift the barrier. It was a very practical solution; it is cost-effective in many locations for a local authority to have a private contractor, who is required to have a high standard of operation, to carry out the enforcement. The problem disappeared almost completely.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way again. I wonder whether when he compiled his comprehensive list of what ifs, he looked to see whether any had transpired in Scotland.

Clive Efford: In the short break that I had for lunch, I did not have time to look at Scotland, but I did look at London, the scale of the commuting that takes place and the problems that occur around stations. The what ifs I have identified are from people’s experience in my constituency.
I have just given a good example of the cost-effective use of a clamping organisation, which the local authority requires to have a high standard in carrying out its duties. Putting up signs across several, including small, locations outside blocks of flats where council tenants and leaseholders live—“If you park on this land, this company will enforce the parking restrictions and you may be clamped”—has removed the problem. It has not required the local authority to invest huge sums of money in barriers on each piece of land; it is a question only of putting up signs and paying a contractor to carry out enforcement and to travel round to check the sites on the odd occasion. That system is cost-effective, and it is an error to take it away at a stroke.
We want to deal with the rotten end of the industry, which we all know exists—the rogue traders that we want to get rid of, such as the cage fighter, who is operating absolutely legitimately under the current law. The way he acts is not unlawful, but it is not in keeping with what we all see as the proper way to behave. We all want to restrict such action and see it stopped. None of us is opposed to doing that, but what the Government are doing goes too far.

Steven Baker: At first, I approached the clause with considerable scepticism, as I think I said in one of the oral evidence sessions. It seemed to me slightly odd that a Protection of Freedoms Bill should ban the defence of private property rights. However, I have come to realise, particularly looking back through the pages of the Bucks F ree P ress, that there is a clash of property rights between the two menaces of rogue parking and rogue clamping. Certainly, in my constituency, people have suffered from both menaces.
Instinctively, I am sympathetic to the right of landowners to defend their property. I only wish I could say that I am a landowner or from a landowning tradition but, although I am a Conservative, I regret that that is sadly not the case. I have surveyed the written evidence from several sources, including the estate mentioned by the hon. Member for Eltham, and valid points have been made. Of course, there is a certain contradiction in that when landowners find a vehicle on their property, one of their key remedies is to immobilise it and keep it there.
The local paper in Wycombe bursts with examples of rogue clamping. One lady left her car in a nightclub car park, because it had snowed. As Members may know, Wycombe is rather like the Alps—it is very steep and hilly; it is like the Alps without the ski slope that someone burned down, but that is for another day.

Tom Brake: Without the après-ski, too.

Steven Baker: No, it has excellent après-ski—but I do not wish to be ruled out of order.
That lady left her car in a nightclub car park for less than 24 hours. It was clamped and she found herself paying £320 for it to be released. Because that act took place in an environment of general good will, where people seek to help their neighbours, the lady was perfectly correct in describing it as “mean and money grabbing.”
As a contrary example, motorists tend to take advantage of Bellfield road shopping centre. Instead of parking and using the nearby shops, they walk into town. There was a recent spate of shop owners using clamping to make it clear to my constituents that the car park was for the use of shop customers, but that created chaos and the fines were excessive.
Another constituent who had been in the local paper came to see me. He confessed to having parked opportunistically—the classic, “just for a few minutes”. I suspect that we have all been there. He found himself clamped, with £300 demanded on the spot. He went off to the cash point and all sorts of intimidating and thuggish behaviour transpired. That situation was disgraceful.
I could easily read into the record comments from our local paper, but for the sake of decency, I shall simply paraphrase. The paper pointed out that fines imposed in Wycombe have been preposterous. In its view, which my constituents widely subscribe to, the clamping situation has become an insult to our system of justice and fairness. People have said that right may well be on the side of clampers and property owners, and it is unfair for people to use parking for a purpose other than that for which it is provided. The hon. Member for Eltham mentioned commuters parking on a private estate to go to work, which is clearly wrong.
One of the key concepts to consider is the old phrase “taking a liberty”. We are here to protect freedom and prevent the taking of liberties. On the one hand, we have property owners who take the liberty of drivers to move their vehicles; on the other, we have drivers who take the liberty of property owners by inconveniencing their use of their land. Opportunistic parking is, of course, wrong, and over-eager clamping and grotesque fines, which are followed up by intimidation, have caused anguish, anger and dismay in my constituency and, I am sure, in everyone else’s.
No doubt the situation goes to the heart of what it is to be human and why we are here. It would be all too tempting to appeal to people simply to behave decently, appropriately, proportionately, and with consideration for their neighbours. As they do not, we find ourselves in the odd situation of using a freedom Bill to ban the exercise of property rights. I must support the Government’s action, but it is a slightly strange situation.

Mark Tami: What about free will?

Steven Baker: I chose my words carefully. Of course I shall support the Government, and my constituents would wish me to do so, but I cannot help wondering whether intimidating behaviour by rogue clampers might have been dealt with in another way. Nevertheless, this is the path that the Government have chosen and it is right that we should defend our constituents in this way. I look forward to seeing how the measure works out.

Lynne Featherstone: We have had an interesting debate on some of the what ifs. I shall try to respond to some of the many points that have been made.
This morning, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North raised a query about why we did not enact the previous Government’s provisions on wheel-clamping. They introduced a raft of further regulation, which extended the licensing of individual clampers by the Security Industry Authority. More regulation, however, is exactly what the Government are trying to stop and curtail while protecting the rights of landowners and motorists. More important, the real menace and evil—the intimidation, threats and bullying—would not necessarily have been affected by such regulation, because it related to matters after the event. If someone’s vehicle were clamped in a dark car park, on a dark night, who would be there to help? There might be no way for them to get home, which would leave them in an impossible and untenable situation, from which they could not get out in any circumstances. The menace that we are tackling is the immobilisation of the vehicle.

Clive Efford: We all sympathise with the point that the hon. Lady has just made, but what about someone who leaves their car in a location late at night? The enactment of the clause would encourage the proliferation of barriers on pieces of land. In that situation, the barrier would come down late at night and the car would be stuck behind it. The same scenario would still apply. The car would still be immobilised, stuck on that piece of land and the driver would have to find someone to release the barrier.

Lynne Featherstone: The legislation makes it clear that if there is a visible barrier, the driver enters that piece of land at their own risk.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about a Government appeal process. It would cost £2 million to set up, at a time when we are rather short of money thanks to the previous Government leaving us with the biggest deficit.
I would also point to what happened under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to clampers operating without a licence. There were 1,700 vehicle immobiliser licences, but only four prosecutions between 2001 and 2009. Licensing individuals who were on the spot clamping does not seem to have been an effective piece of legislation in dealing with the menace of clamping, bullying and intimidation. The Act gave them all sorts of regulations to deal with, such as letting the authority know which company they worked for, their name and those sorts of things. Increasing bureaucracy and regulation would not deal with the menace.

Diana Johnson: It is important to note that the provision was put into the 2010 Act as recognition by all parties that the provisions that had been brought in previously on wheel-clamping and licensing wheel-clamping operatives did not go far enough. I am struck by the fact that the Minister is suggesting that all regulation is bad regulation. We would all accept that regulation can sometimes be very helpful in protecting individuals in this country.

Lynne Featherstone: Yes, regulation can be useful, but in this case, the first burst of regulation did not help, so a second, third or fourth burst along those lines would not help to deal with the menace that we are tackling in clause 54 by making it an offence to tow away or immobilise a car using a wheel clamp.
The hon. Lady asked when the ban will be introduced. We will seek to bring the ban into force as quickly as possible after Royal Assent. With new criminal offences, the normal practice is to give at least two months’ notice of commencement.
The hon. Lady asked whether rogue clampers would not turn into rogue ticketers. Everyone recognises that there are some issues around ticketing, but they are the issues that arise in every private car park throughout the land where there is no private wheel-clamping. Most private pieces of land are regulated by ticketing. That comes under consumer protection law. Not everyone uses clamping. When Patrick Troy from the British Parking Association was giving evidence, he told us that of the 150 clampers registered with the BPA, only 12 are solely clampers. The rest do ticketing as well. Those people can normally make a good living out of ticketing.
An issue was raised about people returning to their car and being menaced by five burly people. One can never say never, but the five burly people would wait an awfully long time for someone to return to their car. If it had a ticket attached, they would not know when the person might return and there would be no means of immobilising the car.
The hon. Lady asked about bailiffs. Their activities will not be affected by the ban when they are carried out with lawful authority. Anything that bailiffs or anyone else can lawfully do now, they will be able to continue to do. If they do not have lawful authority now, the Bill will not make their actions lawful. Lawful authority for bailiffs includes existing statutory powers, such as the power of certificated bailiffs to immobilise and remove vehicles for unpaid council or national taxes and specific powers for bailiffs to enforce debts, including immobilising or towing away vehicles in relation to debts enforceable under magistrates court warrants of distress. Bailiffs also have common law powers to seize and sell goods to recover a sum of money, in the exercise of which vehicles may be immobilised and towed away.
The hon. Lady asked for a list of lawful authorities. The following is not an exhaustive list, but it includes the most typical examples. The police have an ability under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and secondary legislation to immobilise and/or remove vehicles on the public highway, or in other circumstances. Local authorities also have a power under the 1984 Act, in addition to the Traffic Management Act 2004. Both local authorities and the police have the power to remove abandoned vehicles from public and private land. Certificated bailiffs have powers, as I have just said. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has the power to immobilise or remove vehicles that have no road tax. The Department for Transport’s Vehicle and Operator Services Agency may use clamping and towing to prevent the use of unroadworthy vehicles. The Ministry of Defence may use clamping and towing on defence lands. Police and local authorities also have a power in respect of unauthorised Travellers and Traveller encampments under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Those are examples of lawful authority to clamp or tow away.
The hon. Lady asked about costs. Regarding police costs—were they to be involved—the Association of Chief Police Officers referred to the amount of time that would be saved if the police did not have to attend incidents when people were being intimidated by rogue clampers, investigate them and take them to court. I think there were 700 cases, but I will have to check that and return to the hon. Lady. ACPO believes that an immense amount of time would be saved by the banning of rogue clampers; people will be able to get into their cars, drive away and pay the ticket in due course.

Diana Johnson: Is the Minister saying that the amount of time now used by the police to deal with rogue clampers and the intimidation that we have been discussing will be much less under any powers that will be given to the police by these provisions?

Lynne Featherstone: I was talking about the amount of time when the police are called to an incident. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East suggested that people would not know who to turn to if an offence had been committed. I am not talking about police powers to tow away, but the time involved if the public have to contact a police person when they see a private clamper or tower clamping or towing away. That is the time police reckon will be saved.
I will come to the cost of police powers to remove vehicles when we discuss them later. The police are able to charge for clamping or towing, so they are able to recover their costs. Clamping and towing are normally contracted out, so it is not actual police time that we are talking about. At the moment the police contract out for towing away. In small police areas, something like 3,000 vehicles are towed away—that does not have anything to do with the changes that we are bringing in—and in bigger metropolitan areas, just under 30,000 vehicles are towed away. They are contracted out and charged for.

Diana Johnson: So that we are clear on this, the Minister is saying that if a car receives a ticket, there may possibly be an additional charge for calling the police to tow the vehicle away. Will the Minister explain how, as a member of the public and a motorist, I could understand to whom I was paying money and for what, and whether there was an appeal procedure in that process?

Lynne Featherstone: I am sure that we will come to such matters in due course, but we are working with ACPO and the British Parking Association to make it clear where the process will be delineated and how members of the public will understand who was doing what to them. Many examples of wheel-clamping will come to hand in a minute, but on coming back to their car and finding it wheel-clamped, people have been told to get the money or else. By the time they come back, a towing charge has been added and they find their car gone, all action having been done by the same clampers. The provision will not only clarify the position, but it will be a much fairer and proportionate way of dealing with matters. We must bear in mind at all times the disproportionate effect of immobilising a vehicle by wheel-clamping—the intimidation. Ticketing is a much more proportionate response to a parking offence.
The hon. Lady asked why such activity should not be made an imprisonable offence, and why the punishment should simply be a fine in a magistrates court. Even if someone clamped and towed a vehicle illegally, I would argue that an imprisonable offence for such a process was disproportionate. Towing and clamping is not worth the punishment of putting someone in prison. If the wheel clampers were using intimidation, menace or threat, they would be subject to indictment and conviction in a court, which might carry a two-year penalty for menaces—things that are additional to the offence of clamping and towing.
Let us move on to issues involving the Blackheath Cator estate and the evidence from the Federation of Private Residents’ Associations. The Cator estate is near a transport junction. Estates that have been used to wheel-clamping will have to make an adjustment when changing to either barriers or tickets. While barriers cost money, they are not the most expensive thing in the world. Let us consider a small business, for example, with two spaces on a busy high street. Estate agents need cars near them as they are always showing people houses. However, perhaps they have had clamping notices until now. At a cost of £50 each, two collapsible poles that can be raised or lowered would not be an enormous adjustment for a business. It might take two seconds longer to raise or lower the barrier, but people must make such judgments themselves. It is not for the Government to prescribe how landowners should protect their property, but it is for them to say that they are removing the menace of clamping and its disproportionate effect on people who are inhibited in going about their daily business.
The simplest bollards cost less than £50, while the cost of more robust, removable bollards starts at about £100. The cost of automatic bollards starts at about £1,400, and the cost of barriers that can be raised and lowered starts at about £1,000. Simple outdoor signs start at a cost of about £10. We must add the cost of the fittings to those appliances, but Edmund King of the Automobile Association said:
“In many instances better land management, manual patrols, physical barriers or even clear signs can often solve private parking problems.”
There is also the issue of what the hon. Member for Eltham described as a truly exceptional estate.

Clive Efford: In many ways.

Lynne Featherstone: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman described an estate with many roads that is near to a transport hub and where there are some barriers, with a woman or man working part-time who lowers and raises them, and it has some community amenities. Perhaps that is an instance where, as is the case with hospitals or universities that might have not dissimilar issues, a local authority might be interested to take over the management and running of parking on that estate, if that could be agreed.
A local authority cannot simply take over, for example, the right to clamp and tow just because they are lawful authorities. They would have to take on the entire management of an estate to be able to do that, using the powers in section 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which already enables a local authority to take a controlling interest and run parking on private land by agreement with the landowner. Furthermore, sections 43 and 44 of that Act enable local authorities to require all car park operators on the relevant roads or in all parts of their area to comply with the terms of their licence. Although those arrangements are not particularly common, they have been used successfully by local authorities with a good reputation for parking enforcement. Of course, that would bring such an estate into the system that people usually experience.
The issue of clamping by local authorities has arisen, but I wanted to say something about it anyway. There is a problem with clamping per se. If we look at clamping in London by local authorities, there are only seven boroughs in London that now clamp, out of the 32 or so London boroughs. There were just over 10,000 clampings in 2009-10, which was down from more than 97,000 clampings in 2005. That is a huge reduction. I venture to suggest that clamping has brought with it a range of problems even when it is being done lawfully by local authorities. Most local authorities use ticketing rather than clamping as a proportionate response.
As I have said before, I was on an estate in Islington and the woman I was calling on was crying—not because I was calling on her. [Laughter.] She was describing to me the draconian parking regime in Islington. Sadly, her husband had died only the week before, which was the reason she was crying. The family had not been able to have people to the funeral and they had “clamp the hearse”-type stories. I think that that is one of the reasons why local authorities have decided that clamping is a disproportionate response, even when it is done with all the rules and all the regulations in place.

Diana Johnson: Does the Minister think that wheel-clamping is ever acceptable?

Lynne Featherstone: Clamping that is done lawfully is acceptable. What I hope I am illustrating is that those who are lawfully authorised to clamp vehicles are finding that clamping is not an appropriate response and they themselves are choosing not to wheel-clamp even though they could. That is a very important point.
The hon. Lady said that not all wheel-clampers are “rogues” and she asked why, if we are tackling rogue wheel-clampers, those good, well-behaved clampers should come into that vernacular. One reason is the reason I have just given. Secondly, we need to be quite clear about trying to stop the menace of rogue wheel-clampers. I am sure that that is why the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux said that a straightforward ban was absolutely the right way to give people the legal tools to combat wheel-clamping and to stop the menace of rogue wheel-clampers, so that there is no doubt that clamping is not allowed.
Then we discussed the issues relating to people with disabilities. Obviously, they are important. I am the Minister for Equalities, which I think the hon. Lady was trying to point out in some way. It is unlikely that even in the current circumstances clampers will clamp in disabled bays, but it does and has happened—a point raised by Government Members.

Diana Johnson: When I looked at the equality column in the impact assessment document that the officials have produced, I was struck that there seemed to be no indication that there was an equality issue here at all. That concerns me, and I am sure that the hon. Lady, as Minister, is also concerned.

Lynne Featherstone: Indeed. My understanding is that, at the moment, in all those places where they do not have wheel-clamping, people with disabled bays are nevertheless protected in the same way, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I understand that there is, therefore, no equalities impact caused by removing wheel-clamping, because it comes from another piece of legislation, but I will go away and double-check that.

Diana Johnson: Can the Minister help me? I am struggling a little with this. If on an estate there is a disabled bay that is marked as such because someone with a disability living in a flat there needs their car nearby, and someone comes along and parks in that bay, under the Bill the only option is to ticket that vehicle, but that does not help the disabled person who is potentially trapped in their home because they cannot get their car close enough to the building. Is that not an equality impact? I do not suggest that wheel-clamping is the solution, but that person is left without any redress.

Lynne Featherstone: That is another issue altogether, because we are removing the power to wheel-clamp a vehicle. If a vehicle that was parked in that disabled bay was clamped, how would that work? I am simply saying that there is no impact created by the removal of the clamping ban and that is why, in the impact assessment, there is no impact of that order.
Persistent offenders was the next item on the hon. Lady’s list. Under current law, the courts take account of previous convictions when sentencing, and although it is a matter for the courts one would expect persistent offenders to be subject to a higher fine. I should think that a £5,000 fine would make someone think twice about getting a parking ticket. A Crown court can impose unlimited fines on conviction on indictment.
Next on the list was the definition of motor vehicles, and what is done about caravans. The definition of motor vehicles in subsection (6) includes trailers and other non-motor vehicles that are towed, and such vehicles are also included in the ban and are covered by the extension of police powers to remove vehicles. In addition, they are classed as vehicles, and can therefore be treated as abandoned vehicles for the purposes of such legislation. On the issue of how landowners can deal with caravans or trailers left on their land, if the vehicle is used on the road the towing vehicle should have a number plate, which enables the keeper to be traced through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. If the vehicle does not have a number plate, it is best if it is reported to the police, because it is possibly abandoned.
Many Members have made reference to Scotland and, to clarify the position, I shall do the same. Clamping and towing on private land was effectively banned by a decision in the Scottish High Court of Justice in 1992. That was, if you like, a pilot study for what we are doing in England. I asked officials to look into what had happened in Scotland since the ban in 1992, since when landowners have had to turn to the other parking control methods of ticketing and barriers, which we think will work equally well in England and Wales. The Scottish Government have no evidence that the ban on clamping and towing in Scotland has caused any serious problems. For example, they have received only one letter from the public on the subject in the past 10 years. ACPO Scotland informed the Home Office that it was unable to find any major issues arising from the ban on clamping in Scotland. In terms of pilot studies, that is fairly convincing. I appreciate all the what ifs, and I think it is right to consider such things, but that is an effective answer.
The hon. Lady asked about consultation. The previous Government consulted on the issue. The consultation received 561 responses, and although a ban was not mentioned as a possibility, more than 100 people nevertheless asked for one in their response. A YouGov survey in August 2010, after the ban was announced, found that 87% of nearly 800 respondents supported it. In July, the Government also invited the public, through the website Your Freedom, to suggest ideas for restoring lost liberties and repealing unnecessary laws—hence the Bill—and banning wheel-clamping was an issue often highlighted.
The hon. Member for Eltham raised a number of what ifs about what might happen if someone who moves a vehicle does something dreadful such as putting it somewhere illegal or damaging it. The person must be aware of that.

Clive Efford: I am sorry if I am being a bit dim—I try to avoid it—but I do not understand that answer. Who must be aware—the person whose vehicle it is, or the person moving the vehicle?

Lynne Featherstone: The person moving the vehicle takes on the responsibility. It is not an ideal solution except in circumstances where there is somewhere outside their property where they can put the car safely. As I said, the recommended way forward is ticketing, not removal, as most people come back within a relatively short time to get their car.

Diana Johnson: To be clear, is the Minister saying that if a person parks in someone else’s driveway and obstructs access to their property, the property owner can move the car on to the public highway, but must take full legal responsibility for parking it safely and putting it in an appropriate place? I just want to be clear. It seems to me that the landowner, householder or tenant now faces a double whammy. Not only has their parking space been taken wrongfully, but they must take on legal responsibility for moving the car.

Lynne Featherstone: That is exactly the position as it is now, and it will be the position after the Bill comes into force.

Steven Baker: Just to make sure I understand, is the Minister saying that the property owner will not have a legal obligation to move the vehicle, but must comply with reasonable legal requirements if they choose to do so?

Lynne Featherstone: That is exactly the position, but it is also the position now. If someone parks in one’s front drive, the same issues apply. What happens if a car obstructs an emergency vehicle, for example?

Clive Efford: I am still not clear, and I would like to pursue the matter a little further. Is it correct that that is the position now? As I understand it, if a vehicle is on someone’s land, they can arrange for it to be taken away. They do not have to move it to a nearby location. That is the restriction that will be imposed on the landowner by the Bill, if I understand it correctly.

Lynne Featherstone: I understand that the landowner can arrange to have the vehicle taken away.

Clive Efford: Taken away?

Lynne Featherstone: The landowner can arrange to have it taken off their land. I apologise for my being indistinct—I have just broken my glasses, which is a bit inconvenient and very troublesome. If anyone has spectacles that I can borrow, I would be grateful.
Emergency vehicle access and emergency situations are covered in clause 55, by which we will extend powers to the police in such emergency situations and only those situations. It will be at the police’s discretion to choose whether an occasion is an appropriate one for them to use those powers.
On all those what ifs, it is not that those are not difficult or challenging circumstances that might create short-term problems for someone parking in their area, but that no harm will be done by the removal of wheel-clamping. At the moment, that is the only differential. We are not saying to landowners that they cannot protect their land by barriers, ticketing or any methods used anywhere in the country where private land is not protected by wheel-clamping. Therefore, although we understand that the coming in of the change is raising concerns about how landowners will protect their land, the assurance is that it has worked in Scotland.
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is going to support the Government in our endeavours to introduce a ban, which is in our best interests. That is good news.
To respond to this stand part debate, clause 54 will make it an offence to clamp, restrict the movement of or move a vehicle without lawful authority. It will be an offence only where there is an intention to prevent the removal of the vehicle by people entitled to do so, such as the driver or owner.
As I have already said, a complete ban on clamping without lawful authority is the only solution to the numerous problems that clamping causes. The industry has been regulated through the licensing of individual wheel-clampers by the Security Industry Authority since 2005. As I said earlier, it has had little effect—four prosecutions in all those years. It has not curbed the wholly unacceptable practices of elements in the parking industry.
Even the shadow Home Secretary was—

James Brokenshire: She was effusive.

Lynne Featherstone: Effusive is perhaps a word too far. She said:
“We agree that action was needed against rogue car clampers. In fact, the Opposition Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton)”—
I pay tribute to her in this debate, because she has been a long-time campaigner for ending the menace of rogue clamping—
“has run some fantastic campaigns against wheel clamping bullies. Some action had been taken to legislate for new licensing measures”.—[Official Report, 1 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 216.]
That is exactly what we are doing.
We have talked about rogue clampers’ practices—extortionate fees, inadequate signage, the targeting of vulnerable groups, intimidating behaviour and frog-marching people to cashpoints, and I am sure that everyone has their own example.

Mark Tami: Breaking people’s glasses.

Lynne Featherstone: Does the hon. Gentleman think that they broke my glasses by remote control? It is a complete pain—just what I needed.
All of those, including the addition of spurious charges, have been an absolute menace. Although the previous Administration tried to deal with it—there is no lack of recognition of that—we simply disagree with them. It would not have been effective simply to regulate more.
Business licensing would not have addressed the fundamental problem of all clamping and towing issues, which is that motorists are deprived of the use of their car, so that, whatever their personal circumstances, they cannot extricate themselves from the situation in which they are clamped. There has been a dreadful litany of situations. We are tackling the fundamental problem that immobilising people in the middle of their business is disproportionate to a parking offence. We must tackle that along with the specific abuses, about which we hear much more—television is delighted to make programmes about them. Having carefully considered the matter and the previous Government’s suggestions, we concluded that wheel-clamping and the towing away of vehicles by private individuals or businesses, without lawful authority, in order to force payment of a charge is unacceptable and should be prohibited.
We heard numerous useful quotes from Chief Constable Chris Sims in the oral evidence sessions, but I should hate to move on from the clause without reading a couple more:
“I can say that it has been a horrendous problem for a number of years…Thus far, the powers have been inadequate to deal with the problem, so we welcome the legislation.”––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 24, Q61.]
“This is nasty and aggressive behaviour.”––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 24, Q64.]
In its memorandum to the Committee, the AA was sickened by the antics of unscrupulous wheel-clampers and their “terror” tactics, stating:
“Thousands of vulnerable people have been held virtual hostage by clampers…The sums demanded and threats used have been extortionate and disproportionate and are far above what is morally right.”
I could quote more, but I am sure that hon. Members understand the depth of feeling of individuals and the police, who have had to deal with the aftermath of such thuggery.
I understand the concerns of some landowners and managers of residential estates—we have discussed that to try to thrash out how far such concerns need to be met. The ban will not prevent landowners or the parking control companies that they employ from carrying out other forms of parking control. Landowners’ concerns can also be addressed by existing powers and by new provisions in the Bill.
We are not aware of concerns about the use of barriers in car parks. I think we all agree that they should be able to continue their business. We see no reason to prevent good car park operators from running their businesses in that way. An aspect that no hon. Member has raised is the fact that owners and drivers will be permitted to clamp their own vehicles to prevent theft, but only on their own land.
Existing powers in section 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 enable a local authority to take a controlling interest. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Eltham, for those estates that are rare and exceptional in their size or proximity or are of a configuration that cannot be ticketed, that might be an option. It is not a requirement, however; it will be on agreement with the local authority.
We have discussed that the penalties must be appropriate. Where there are issues of thuggery, or additional menaces or threats, there is a possibility of imprisonment, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has discussed.
The clause will make a real difference to the thousands of motorists who fall prey to rogue wheel-clampers every year. No one can justify or defend the exorbitant release fees and intimidatory tactics that are employed. Although I heard the what ifs from the hon. Member for Eltham, it began to sound as though he was in favour of retaining the menace of wheel-clamping on private land. Licensing has been tried, and failed to address the abuses. The time has come to take far more decisive action. The prohibition on clamping has been widely welcomed and will come as a relief to motorists; I therefore have no hesitation in commending the clause to the Committee.
 The Chair  rose—

Diana Johnson: Do I have a chance to respond?

Martin Caton: This was a debate on clause stand part. It was not on an amendment tabled by you.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Diana Johnson: Thank you, Mr Caton. I apologise for my confusion; I was obviously getting carried away thinking about the amendments that we have been discussing. I welcome everyone back after the lunch break—you in particular, because this is the first time that I have spoken while you have been in the Chair.
Clause 55 will amend section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, extending the police’s right to move a vehicle from a highway and giving them the power to remove vehicles from any piece of land. According to the explanatory notes, the clause will also enable local authorities to remove vehicles from any land, again under section 99 of the 1984 Act. That section also gives the power to remove vehicles to other bodies, such as the DVLA and other enforcement agencies.
The important thing for the Committee to understand is that we are talking about a power, not a duty. Therefore, whether the police or local authority wish to remove a vehicle is at their discretion. Again I had a look at what the Minister said on her website—it is always an interesting source of information regarding her and the coalition Government’s thinking. On 17 August, she referred to the police and their role in dealing with illegal parking on her website. She made it clear that the police would be involved only in exceptional circumstances. It is important to recognise that the idea held by organisations, groups, businesses and residents who might be concerned about what will happen if they find that there are vehicles on their premises or in their driveway—that the police will come down the road to move the car—is not going to become reality.
What is the Minister’s view on the pressure that might be put on the police or on local authorities to deal with particularly persistent rogue parkers? They are people who park and block driveways or park in spaces that are connected to flats or are on the estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, which we have been discussing at length. What pressure does the Minister think will be put on the police and local authorities?
I am also minded that we spent quite a lot of time on the role of the police commissioner in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. What does the Minister think about that? The issue of parking, as I am sure all hon. Members will know, can generate a huge amount of interest and comment from constituents and the public. If we hold a public meeting about parking, one can guarantee to fill the room, whereas we probably cannot do that for most public meetings. There is an issue about whether the police will come under enormous pressure to use their resources to deal with such problems. Of course, that is against the backdrop of the cuts to the police service. We know that they will have to deal with 20% cuts over the next few years.
There is also a question about the local authorities’ role in the matter. We all know, from our own local authorities, the financial pressures that they are under. I am not sure that they will want to get involved in expensive removals of vehicles from private land. Will the Minister comment on what evidence she has, perhaps from the Local Government Association or any other local authority group, about their feeling and how they think it will work in practice?
If there is persistent parking in a small car park adjacent to a GP surgery, will that be given a higher priority because it is a GP practice rather than, say, a sheltered housing block where rogue parkers have parked in disabled bays? I am just trying to get a sense from the Minister of how she thinks the clause will work in practice and what priority will be given to different groups.
During an evidence session in the beginning of the Bill’s proceedings, I asked the ACPO representative, Mr Sims, about the costs of removing a vehicle. Unfortunately, he was not able to answer me and I have not heard from him since about the cost. I am interested to know the Minister’s view about the cost that is likely to be levied on the individual vehicle owner for the removal of a vehicle by the police or the local authority. In one of our earlier debates, we discussed what would happen if there was genuinely a sense that removing a vehicle was inappropriate or wrong. Is there any right of appeal? Is there any mechanism that the individual motorist can use to challenge the fact that the police or local authority were called to remove their vehicle? That is one issue.
I am also interested in what the RAC has produced on this issue. It posted an article on the Which? website about the Government’s proposals. The comments in response to that posting showed that the general public felt that the police would not be in a position to be interested in being called out to deal with what is basically nuisance parking. So the general public take the view that this measure will give them very little protection as private landowners.
I also want to ask about the issue of double ticketing. Patrick Troy and Edmund King discussed it in our evidence sessions. If the police remove a vehicle, they will charge the owner £150 to get the vehicle back. In the first instance, the vehicle may also have been issued with a ticket by the landowner. So there a double liability kicks in there. I have already raised with the Minister the issue of appealing the cost of removing a vehicle, but can she go into a little more detail about how there will be clarity for the motorist about how all these things will fit together? I know she said there would be a public education programme prior to the enactment of these provisions, but what exactly does that mean?
I think the Minister is genuinely in some difficulty, because it is really quite complicated for the public to understand the difference between public and private land. Often, people understand that with the public highway there are rights of appeal and other things that they can do to challenge decisions if they feel that a ticket was not issued properly. But as I understand it from reading the provisions in later clauses, under this scheme there will be no right of appeal, so I think people will be very confused. It would be helpful to learn from the Minister how she intends to carry out a public education campaign. What resources will be allocated to it? How does she envisage that the whole thing will pan out?

Lynne Featherstone: To respond to the hon. Lady’s main concern about the cost of removing vehicles by the police or local authorities, parking is ultimately a civil and not a criminal matter. I am absolutely sure that both the police and local authorities are quite capable of resisting any pressure put on them to use the new power in clause 55 inappropriately. The new power relates only to vehicles that have been parked illegally, obstructively or dangerously.
Moreover, it is not for the Government to set police priorities. That is for local communities and the new police and crime commissioners. The issue that the hon. Lady raises is appropriate, but it will be up to the local police and crime commissioner in an area to deal with it. In a debate on an earlier clause, we discussed how seriously the police will take these matters. There will be a police and crime commissioner and, as the hon. Lady said, parking is something that gets people stirred up. Certainly every time that parking controls are raised as an issue in my area of Haringey, we get great attendance at council meetings compared with discussions of other issues that might be viewed as more serious. That issue will come into play, but there will be pressure to execute the law. The law is clear: the powers are extended to the police for use in emergencies at their discretion. That it is not a duty but an operational matter is crucial and is welcomed by ACPO. It will be for the police to decide what the circumstances are. In my mind, they are exactly the circumstances that were raised by Opposition Members, such as when a vehicle is blocking an emergency exit and an emergency vehicle cannot get through. It is not a local, friendly, tow-away service.

Diana Johnson: I appreciate what the Minister is saying and I am listening carefully. What would her expectation be in the particular instance I outlined? If someone has a disabled parking bay outside their property, a rogue parker parks in it, and ticketing has been tried and does not work, would the police take that as an exceptional circumstance where they would get involved?

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Lady raises a good point, which has been recognised. ACPO will produce guidance for the police, which will help police forces decide in which circumstances it is appropriate to use the extended power. It is not for the Government to second-guess what the police might come up with as their list of priorities, but it is certainly something the hon. Lady could write to ACPO about. As we have discussed with the police, it is important that the guidance is clear to them.
We have recognised that some landowners will have concerns. I have referred to the pilot in Scotland, where people were used to having wheel-clamping as the deterrent, and these issues have been tried and tested. Landowners feel that a ban on clamping and towing will make it more difficult for them to effectively enforce parking control. They fear what might happen without that deterrent. We understand and acknowledge their fears that the provisions will reduce the options available to them to protect their land, but we point them to the pilot in Scotland. To help meet their concerns, I expect the police to use the powers in limited circumstances, where they believe that there is an operational imperative, such as an emergency, or where a vehicle is dangerously parked or obstructing something important.
As I have said, we have consulted ACPO about the plan. It welcomed the intention that the extended powers are expected to be exercised with discretion, not as a duty. It indicated that it would expect police forces to respond in the light of the circumstances of each incident and available resources, but that it was likely that police forces would attend when they thought there was risk of harm. For example, the police may decide to tow away a vehicle blocking a hospital accident and emergency entrance, or an office’s fire exit. The guidance produced by ACPO for the police will lay out those priorities.
We do not expect these provisions to place a large burden on the police. Any increase in the work of the police through pursuing cases against illegal immobilisers should be offset, as we discussed earlier, first, by the repeal of the existing offences in the Private Security Industry Act 2001 relating to unlicensed clampers and, secondly, by removing the burden arising from the investigation of cases involving clamping and towing incidents. In addition, landowners and their parking agents and managers will be legally able to move a vehicle parked on their private land, as long as their intention is not to prevent the vehicle owner from removing it, which should help keep down the number of requests.
The provisions will be a useful addition to the armoury of tools available to deal with inconsiderate drivers who park their vehicles without consideration for others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe says, it would be a wonderful world if everyone was polite and did not park where they should not, but, sadly, it is not the world that we live in. I am always a bit of an optimist, however. I do not want to give the impression that the police will use these powers routinely to remove obstructively or dangerously parked vehicles. Only in cases of real need will they be able to act. The clause will give them the means to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

Diana Johnson: I beg to move amendment 105, in clause56,page38,line25,at beginning insert ‘(1)’.

Martin Caton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 106, in clause56,page38,line27,at end insert—
‘(2) Recovery of unpaid parking charges shall be subject to the right of appeal.
(3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the purpose specified in subsection (4) in a case where, in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, a person attempts to claim unpaid parking charges from the driver or keeper of the vehicle.
(4) The purpose referred to in subsection (3) is to entitle a person to appeal against the parking charge which they believe has been enforced against them, either by way of a contract relating to parking or by way of Schedule 4.
(5) Regulations under this section shall specify the grounds on which an appeal may be made.
(6) The grounds may include in particular—
(a) a contravention of a code of practice issued by an Accredited Trade Association;
(b) contravention of any requirement imposed by or under this Act.
(7) Regulations under this section shall make provision for and in connection with the person to whom an appeal may be made.
(8) The person may in particular be—
(a) a person exercising functions of adjudication or the hearing of appeals under another enactment;
(b) a body established appointed by the Secretary of State under the regulations;
(c) an individual appointed under the regulations by the Secretary of State or by another person specified in the regulations.
(9) Regulations under this section may also include provision—
(a) as to the procedural conditions to be satisfied by a person before an appeal may be made;
(b) as to the payment of a fee by the appellant;
(c) as to the procedure (including time limits) for making an appeal;
(d) as to the minimum level of charge before an appeal may be brought;
(e) as to the procedure for deciding an appeal;
(f) as to the payment to the appellant by the respondent of—
(i) the charge against which the appeal is made;
(ii) other costs incurred by the appellant in consequence of the activity referred to in subsection (3);
(g) as to the payment by a party to an appeal of—
(i) costs of the other party in relation to the adjudication;
(ii) other costs in respect of the adjudication;
(h) as to the payment by the respondent to an appeal, in a case where the appeal is granted, of a charge in respect of the costs of adjudications under the regulations;
(i) as to the effect and enforcement of a decision of the person to whom an appeal is made—
(i) requiring or authorising the person to whom an appeal is made to provide information relating to the appeal to the authority;
(ii) to the effect that a person who makes a representation that is false in a material particular, and does so recklessly or knowing it to be false, commits an offence triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(10) The provision specified in paragraphs (e), (f) and (f)(i) of subsection (9) includes provision authorising the person to whom an appeal is made to require payment of the matters specified in those paragraphs.’.
New clause 7—Signage required where parking facilities are made available to the public
‘(1) Where a facility for parking on private land is made available to the public, or a specific group of persons, due warning of the terms and conditions for that parking will be prominently displayed, as a minimum, at all entrances. This must include, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) notice of the ban on clamping, towing and immobilisation to highlight that it is now a criminal offence,
(b) the hours during which parking is permitted,
(c) any restriction on who is permitted to park,
(d) any restriction on the length of time parking is permitted,
(e) whether any additional consideration is extended to disabled drivers displaying a blue badge,
(f) the cost, if any, of parking and any charges made for breach of parking conditions,
(g) the manner in which drivers will be informed of any breach of parking conditions,
(h) the full name and contact details, including a geographical address for the business offering the contract to park.’.
New clause 8—Ticketing of vehicles left on land
‘(1) The creditor has the right to claim payment of any unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle. That right applies only if the following conditions are met—
(a) the creditor has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the terms of the relevant contract which require the unpaid parking charges to be paid;
(b) a notice that contains the information specified in sub-paragraph (3 “notice to the driver”) has been given to the driver by or on behalf of the creditor;
(c) where the driver challenges whether the correct notice was served at the time of the claimed infringement, the onus of proof rests with the creditor.
(2) The notice must—
(a) state that by virtue of a contract the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on that land on such day or days as the notice may specify;
(b) describe the circumstances in which the contract was formed, the terms which required the driver to pay those charges and the facts that make them payable;
(c) state the total amount of unpaid parking charges due from the driver and a breakdown of the charges in terms of costs and damages suffered (as at such time as may be specified in the notice, which must be no later than the time specifed under paragraph (g));
(d) inform the driver of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes of complaints available under subsection (4);
(e) inform the driver of any discount offered for prompt payment;
(f) specify how and to whom payment may be made;
(g) state the time and date on which the notice was issued.’.
New clause 9—Redress
‘The Secretary of State shall make provision for the purpose of providing independent redress, which is free to consumers and funded through the industry, where the conditions specified in Clause [Signage required where parking facilities are made available to the public] and in Clause [Ticketing of vehicles left on land] have not been met or there are reasonable grounds for challenging the claimed breach.’.
New clause 13—Offence of issuing excess parking charges
‘(1) A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority, requires a driver or any person in possession of a vehicle to pay parking charges in relation to a contract to park that vehicle.
(2) The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to enter into a contract regarding parking is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where—
(a) the person or body attempting to enforce the parking charges is a member of an Accredited Trade Association so accredited by the Secretary of State, and
(b) the penalty charge can be appealed to an independent body as set out in section 56(2), and
(c) the person or body attempting to enforce the parking charges takes reasonable steps to inform the driver or keeper of the vehicle about the right to appeal.
(4) The Secretary of State can, by way of regulation, introduce a maximum charge, under which parking charges would not be subject to subsection (1).
(5) A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine,
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
(7) In this section “motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.’.

Diana Johnson: The lead amendment in this group splits clause 56 into two sections. Amendment 105 sets out the existing wording as subsection (1) and is linked to amendment 106, which sets out a second subsection that we would like inserted.
The proposed subsection would introduce the right of appeal to an independent body for anyone who is ticketed on private land. It would also include those who have been issued with a ticket and immobilised by a barrier. We have had a lengthy discussion today about that. Again, I looked at what the Minister was saying on her website, on 27 August this time, when she commented that ticketing was highly regulated and consumer protection legislation already applied. There was already an independent appeals process in place, which was proportionate and acted as a good deterrent.
There is clearly some confusion. I think the Minister was referring to the appeals procedure for parking tickets issued on the public highway. That is right; people can take forward any appeal they feel is legitimate when they have been issued with a parking ticket. I think all hon. Members would feel that to be able to appeal in that way is fair and sensible and complies with natural justice.
Amendments 105 and 106 would introduce a clause that was in the Crime and Security Act 2010, about which we have heard a lot. We know that the previous Government, rather than banning wheel-clamping, were intending to introduce a whole series of regulations about what could happen when a vehicle was clamped. One of the specific regulations to be introduced was a right of appeal, which was devised after significant consultation with stakeholders. The right of appeal was supported in the written evidence the British Parking Association submitted to the Committee and also by the AA in its written submission.
The Home Office impact assessment looked at the estimate for the introduction of an appeal procedure. The Minister has already said that the cost of setting it up would be £2 million. I seek clarification from her, but as I understand it the £2 million would include the licensing provisions within the Crime and Security Act, as well as the appeals process. I am informed by some of the key stakeholders that setting up a stand-alone appeals process—leaving aside the regulation on licensing that was in the Crime and Security Act and just dealing with an appeals process—could be self-funding from the organisations that would be involved in the ticketing process that the Bill would promote and introduce.
Edmund King of the AA told the Committee in our evidence sessions about the appeals process for on-street ticketing—the process in place now:
“With on-street ticketing, there is a good independent appeals system: the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, which is independent, and is accepted by motorists and local authorities. The parking companies pay it a levy of approximately 65p per penalty charge notice to pay for the system. It is perceived to be a fair system. That certainly is something that we would support.”––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 151, Q429.]
We tabled amendments 105 and 106 to give the Government the opportunity to look at the implementation of an independent appeals procedure. I know that the Minister is keen on fairness and being seen to be fair. There might be all sorts of reasons why people dispute tickets being put on their vehicles, but it would not strike ordinary members of the public as fair if they were unable to appeal against such action. The hon. Lady also referred to action that is proportionate, but how proportionate is it just to be landed with a ticket?
The Government have failed to regulate the amount of the penalty that the ticket company can charge the vehicle owner. For example, there is nothing to stop a ticket company putting a penalty notice of £500 on a car. The hon. Lady will probably talk about enforcement and the BPA, and the fact that only businesses that are members of an accredited trade association can go to the DVLA, but she will also be aware of the statistics and the number of people who pay up front without arguing. They might well feel intimidated and consider that they have no choice but to pay.
The Home Office’s impact assessment states that, at present, when there is no regulator or keeper liability, 75% of wheel-clamping tickets are paid. Most people just pay up and, with a ticketing regime, that percentage will probably remain about the same. The British Parking Association estimates that 40% of tickets are paid on the spot and that people may well think they have to pay at that stage. As I have said, Edmund King referred in his evidence to the fact that, under a wheel-clamping system, a ticketing business could have four burly people who demand £500 with menaces, which might intimidate people into paying the fee that they are asked to meet.
The Home Office impact assessment estimates that 90% of tickets will be paid under the new ticketing scheme. Even more people will therefore be paying straightaway, so is it not a problem that there is no right of appeal as well as no figure for what the ticketing company can charge? The RAC and the Ipsos MORI poll that it conducted last year found that 77% of the general public were in favour of an appeal system for penalty tickets issued on private land. On that basis, amendments 105 and 106 need to be considered by the Government, given their support for fairness and doing the right thing for motorists and landowners.
New clause 13 would increase the regulation of ticketers. I make no apology for it because most people think it sensible for there to be some limit on what a parking ticketing company can charge. The new clause would make it a criminal offence if excessive charges were issued by ticketing companies. To protect themselves, ticketing companies would need to be members of an accredited trade organisation such as the British Parking Association, and there would have to be a right of appeal to an independent appeals procedure. The appeals process also needs to be set out clearly on the ticket when issued.
The new clause allows the Secretary of State to issue a regulation giving a maximum fee under which parking charges would not be illegal, giving companies protection to carry out their business. Thus, the Secretary of State could say that charges of less than £20 are fine, for example, but anyone wanting to extract a greater fee must comply with the regulations on being a member of an accredited trade association and having an independent appeals procedure. The regulations could be quite detailed and could also set out exemptions where appropriate, for example with regard to long stays or for larger vehicles.
We would also argue that the penalties should be the same as they are for the provisions on wheel-clamping and immobilisation in clause 54. That would protect motorists, in particular vulnerable drivers who might be subject to intimidating tactics from ticketers. It would stop rogue clampers from migrating to become rogue ticketers, which I think most people accept could be a problem. It would place restrictions on ticketing aimed at generating income rather than solely protecting property and preventing nuisance parking. Edmund King said in his evidence that there was a lot of money to be generated by setting oneself up as a ticketing company and offering 10% of the ticketing fee to the landowner. The new clause would place a strong incentive on landowners to minimise car-parking costs and ticket fees. It would be a simple system, with the onus on the ticketer to become accredited. It would offer protection to motorists and ensure that they are treated fairly by any ticketing company. I would like to test the Committee’s opinion on amendment 106 and new clause 13.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East has set out some clear protections for motorists in new clauses 7 to 9, which are also in the group, regarding parking signage, an appeals process and what is on the ticket. They would put the onus on the driver rather than the keeper—a topic that we will come on to in schedule 4. The provisions set out in those new clauses are also sensible and helpful to protect motorists.

Tom Watson: Good afternoon, Mr Caton. There have been moments this afternoon when, had we been holding the debate on the top of a multi-storey car park in West Bromwich, I would have thrown myself off.

Michael Ellis: You would have been clamped.

Tom Watson: Is that someone volunteering over there?
I have tabled a series of amendments and new clauses that I hope the Minister will take as helpful. My main problem with the clause and schedule 4 is that I understand them to be trying to put contractually based car parking on private land on a parity with parking on a road by making the registered keeper liable, except that all the protections that a driver has when they park on a road are not introduced. For example, all local authorities provide a free and independent appeals process for motorists, and it happens to be that 87% of those appeals are upheld. There is a fear—this is a concern of Members on both sides of the Committee—that rogue clampers will just become rogue ticketers once clamping is banned. Therefore we need a comprehensive system of free and independent appeals. It is vital that the sector aims to tackle rogue parking companies, whatever way they choose to subvert the rules.
The intention of the new clauses is to create some straightforward rules. People need basic information. Drivers need to know what is going on, and parking companies need to supply that information so that both parties have a clear understanding of the contract they are making. There is no regulator for the sector, so it is important to include that element in the Bill. The level of detail in the new clauses offers clear guidance and matches the level of information that the Bill currently acknowledges is necessary for parking notices under clause 56 and schedule 4.
In addition, to deliver the Government’s objective to deal with unscrupulous parking businesses, the Bill must make it clear what drivers will be required to pay. As that is a contractual matter, and not a fine—as would be the case on a public highway—charges should not be used as a punishment. The Bill must ensure that the fee for breaking parking rules on private land is not a random sum chosen by the parking business that bears no relation to the losses suffered.
I tabled new clauses 7 and 8 because there is a significant risk that once clamping and towing have been banned, clampers will move to ticketing, which makes it vital that sufficient protections are put in place for motorists. That is not only my view, as other Members have said. In his oral evidence to the Committee, Mr Troy, chief executive of the British Parking Association, said:
“The big risk with the legislation as it is phrased is that rogue clampers will simply become rogue ticketers if we do not address that wider issue at the same time.”—[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 144, Q416.]
Citizens Advice, Consumer Focus and the Trading Standards Institute have similar concerns. Since the ban on clamping and towing was announced, citizens advice bureaux have already reported that they are seeing an increase in clients seeking advice after receiving demands for large sums for parking breaches.
Charges for even minor infringements of parking conditions, such as staying a few minutes over the allotted time or making a mistake, are often disproportionately high and do not relate to the actual loss suffered by the car park operator. Signage is poor and the legal basis on which some of the charges are claimed is unclear. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said that inappropriate or poor signage comes up at their advice surgeries. Large sums are claimed where parking charges and so-called penalty notices are sent to vehicle keepers. Those charges can mirror charges levied when vehicles have been clamped or towed.
Of course, parking operators must be able to enforce the legitimate terms and conditions of the service they offer, but parking charges issued by private car-parking operators often do not represent the actual loss suffered by the operator when a motorist overstays or otherwise breaches the terms of a contract. As such, the charges are disproportionately high and unreasonable and have not been subject to a court decision as to their validity. There is a danger that once the ban on clamping comes into force, rogue parking operators will simply fail to provide sufficient information on signage and continue to impose disproportionate charges.
My proposed new clause 7 would place a legal obligation on parking operators to provide clear information to the parking public about the terms of the contract that they are entering into, and provide drivers with information about how much they will be charged and any costs they might face if they overstep the terms of the contract. I also propose that signage must include full name and contact details, including a geographical address for the business offering the contract to park, so that if drivers want to dispute a decision they have a way of contacting the company that issued the fine.
Private parking companies should make parking work well for the landowner and their customers, but all too often they just stand by and watch people make mistakes, and ramp up fees and make themselves scarce when a driver needs to speak to them or query a notice. For example, CAB in Oxfordshire recently reported seeing a client who parked his car for five minutes while he collected a letter. He returned to his car and found it clamped, and the operator demanded a payment of £320 to release it.
As currently drafted, the clause does not contain any regulation of signage or proportionate claims for breaches of parking contract rules, and that should be addressed. My suggested new clause 8 is intended to ensure that any driver who receives a fine for a breach of contract knows exactly what it is for. Too often, the first thing drivers know of any problem is when they receive a debt collection notice through the post, for a significant sum of money. In my own region of the west midlands, the CAB was advised that a man received a debt collection letter claiming £197 for an alleged parking infringement two months earlier. The car park was owned by a firm that also owned the building where the client worked. He had a permit to park there, which he had displayed. He assured the bureau that had he received earlier communication, he would have sorted it out at once.
I am simply suggesting that if a parking company wants to levy a charge on a driver who has broken the terms of a car park’s contract, it must issue the person with a notice, explaining what the charge is for, in order to show that it is proportionate, and how to pay it. In schedule 4, which we will debate later, the Government have already stipulated that any company seeking to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of a vehicle must meet those conditions. All I am suggesting is that those same protections be extended to the driver to whom the company is issuing the charge in the first instance. In the Bill as drafted, registered vehicle keepers will have extra protections that drivers do not, when a parking company is pursuing them for unpaid charges.
New clause 9 would ensure that there is an independent complaints process for consumers who believe that a charge has been applied unfairly. If people receive a parking ticket from their local authority they have access to an independent appeals process. It is not unreasonable that they have access to a similar appeals process if they park in a private car park.
The BPA code of practice requires its members to have an in-house appeals process, but as I have mentioned, there is nothing to compel parking operators to join the BPA and the code does not require BPA approval of a member’s internal processes for disputes and appeals. The alternative dispute resolution process I have in mind need not be hugely expensive to set up, but should, as is the norm in other sectors such as utilities and financial services, be paid for by the businesses of that sector. It must be independent, must be available to anybody from whom a parking charge is claimed and must meet a set of criteria. That framework of criteria is normally put in place in other markets where ADR is available and is already in place, such as the estate agency sector, where the Office of Fair Trading drew up the criteria. In this sector, the Secretary of State may find the Department for Transport to be the most relevant body.
Along with criteria, the costs for setting up an ADR process and ongoing costs would need to be considered. While that would be a matter for the Secretary of State, I want to give an example of how it might be structured, so that hon. Members can be alert to at least one option of how ADR might be paid for.
The DVLA is the access point used by parking businesses to obtain a name and address for the parking charge claim, where that is sent in the post. The driver should remain the only party against whom a valid claim can be legally made. We will return to that point later. The DVLA is the only point of access to a name and address relating to the vehicle that has parked. As such, it is already pivotal to claims made for parking charges. The DVLA currently claims a fee for releasing vehicle keeper details to a parking business, which covers its costs. An additional fee could be levied at the same time to pay for setting up the ADR scheme. In that way, all businesses using the DVLA would contribute.
In addition, a fee could be charged for each case so that the business involved pays. That is common practice. For example, the Financial Ombudsman Service uses it. The DVLA would then be informed when its own rules for access to keeper details are being abused. That issue was recently raised in an episode of BBC’s “Watchdog”, which featured several cases of unfair treatment of drivers. The reputation of the DVLA and businesses in this sector would be restored. For the businesses, ADR would be a cheaper option than taking each of their cases to court. Drivers would be able to rely on fair treatment, as they currently can for parking appeals relating to the public highway.
All drivers for whom a parking charge is claimed need access to an alternative dispute resolution system if they contend that they have not breached the parking conditions or believe that they have been asked to pay an unreasonable amount. The parking business might not make use of registered keeper information purchased from the DVLA, because only BPA members can access such information, and as we know, not all parking operators are members. Nevertheless, such operators should contribute to the cost of providing the ADR system, and case charges would need to reflect that. That option could represent a solution to the need to have an ADR system that does not place further burden on the public purse.

Lynne Featherstone: As the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North and for West Bromwich East have said, the amendments and new clauses seek to provide further regulation of ticketing as a method of parking enforcement. They are predicated on a fear that rogue clampers will turn into rogue ticketers, and that the measure will encourage disreputable elements in the parking industry to switch from clamping to ticketing, adopting the same strong-arm tactics.
I do not seek to belittle those concerns, but I refer hon. Members to the basic point that we are dealing with the menace of clamping and its removal. That is what the provision is all about. I shall again quote Chris Sims from ACPO, because it will not hurt to reiterate the point about intimidation, which is the core of everything. His concern was
“the level of intimidation that comes with the presence of a clamp.”
He said:
“There may be issues with ticketing, but it will not carry the level of immediate intimidation that has been the really evil part of this. I am sure that issues will remain, but I think that the provision”—
the ban on wheel-clamping—
“will take away the threatening issue for members of the public.”––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 25, Q67.]
I return to that point because the amendments and new clauses are about ticketing regulation and not simply about the removal of the menace. The proposals to make a better world for the regulation of ticketing, rights of appeal, fairness to drivers and so on are all part of the desire to ensure that redress can be gained. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North began by saying that there was nowhere to go with an appeal ticket, but it is not true that nothing can be done. If a driver does not pay, a landowner can go to court under consumer protection legislation. Opposition Members have spoken as though the situation does not already exist—as though contractors who are not members of the BPA do not already ticket, but they do. The current consumer protection law protects pieces of land. If landowners wish to operate parking controls and charge for parking, they must comply with consumer protection law and put up clear signs.
People are concerned about the amount that could be charged in such circumstances. The charge will be limited to what is on the sign and limited by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. It is therefore simply not true that there will be no protection—as currently—for consumers on privately owned land when landowners have contracted out the rights to ticket or clamp to a parking company. There will be protection, because if there is signage, the companies are liable. A contract has been entered into if a car is parked on that land and accepts the terms and conditions that are posted. If the signs are not visible, are not there or do not state what they should state, the companies will be found against under the consumer protection law.

Diana Johnson: I seek clarification. At present, in my constituency of Hull there are signs stating that people will be wheel-clamped in a certain car park for which the release fee is £250, and if the car is towed away, the amount to pay is £400. I understand that such action is completely legal. Is the Minister saying that, under a new ticketing regime, the same sign could be shown? Obviously, the company cannot wheel-clamp, but it could say that if car owners do not comply with the parking conditions on a certain site, they will have to pay a penalty of £250. Is the hon. Lady arguing that that could happen?

Lynne Featherstone: I am saying that if the sign stated that a person would be charged £250 for a ticket and that person then parked on that piece of land, under consumer protection law such a judgment could be made.

Tom Watson: This is becoming a bit of a car crash, although I genuinely admire the back-seat drivers on the Bill team for trying to hold the vehicle on the road. My new clause on signage attempts to be clear and explicit at the outset about the terms of trade for ordinary people parking their cars, and for people who transform themselves from clampers into ticketers about whom the Minister has left comments on her blog. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to ask her to put words into the Bill that afford protection to car drivers at the start. I am not convinced that consumer legislation would provide the sort of signage offered under the new clause.

Martin Caton: Order. The intervention is very long. I think that the Minister has the picture.

Lynne Featherstone: If the Opposition had been so anxious about regulating the ticketing industry, they had plenty of time in which to carry out such a change. [ Interruption. ] I have listened to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I will come to them in a moment. As for what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said about paying £250 for a ticket, I said earlier that, under consumer protection law, an unreasonable price for the offence would be judged against.

Tom Watson: Will the Minister give way?

Lynne Featherstone: I shall give way one more time, but the hon. Gentleman had a long enough time in which to make his points, and I would like the time in which to answer them before we come to matters that I have not covered.

Tom Watson: Look, I am sorry. It is unacceptable to blame the Opposition. The Minister said that we had the opportunity to make such a change 10 years ago, but that is not a valid argument. The hon. Lady is in charge of the policy now. I have spent a lot of time working on the new clauses, and she has failed to give me an adequate answer to what I am putting forward as legitimate protections for car drivers in this country. If her reply is that the present Government do not intend to do anything because the Labour party did not bother to make such changes when it was in government—

Lynne Featherstone: Is this an intervention?

Tom Watson: I shall stop. If we are to receive such answers in Committee, it gives no credence to the coalition assisted places scheme in the ministerial team.

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman’s points are completely invalid. I have not dealt with them in my response yet, but I wish to quote at him something that he said on Second Reading, which was:
“I just want to say that this part of the Bill—
the part on wheel-clamping—
“is fantastic and that the Home Secretary has my full support for it…The thousands of people who signed my cowboy clampers petition will thank her for finally listening to the people”.—[Official Report, 1 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 210.]

Tom Watson: Will the Minister give way?

Lynne Featherstone: Not at this point. I am considering important matters. I am not denigrating the idea but—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North—I am saying that, under current consumer law, there is protection. People cannot charge anything they like. The question for the Government and the Committee in considering the amendments is whether the current law as it applies to parking and ticketing is insufficient or sufficient to deal with the worries that have arisen about inadequate signage and excessive charges. That is what we are currently debating.
However, we also have to weigh up whether the abuses are such that they justify putting in place the raft of Opposition proposals. The amendments and new clauses, which refer to the earlier Administration’s uncommenced legislation, are typical of the last Government’s approach, which was all about regulation and legislation. While the hon. Member for West Bromwich East may say that it is unreasonable to say that the Opposition had 13 years to put things in place, if the matter was of such importance, it certainly is valid for my side to question why that was not done. This Government are absolutely determined to reduce regulatory burdens. Where regulation is needed, we will make it, and where it would be excessive, we will not go forward with it.

Diana Johnson: I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the following point, so that I can tell my constituents in Hull. If someone parks on a highway and gets a parking ticket, they have the right to go through an independent appeals process. However, if they park 10 yards down the road on private land and get a ticket under the Bill’s provisions, that is it; they have no right of redress through an appeals process. My constituents would genuinely feel that if they had a grievance and a point to appeal on, they should be allowed to pursue it, irrespective of whether the parking was on a public highway or a private piece of land.

Lynne Featherstone: There has always been a difference between the public highway and private land. That is the way the law in this country has developed.

Diana Johnson: But it shouldn’t be.

Lynne Featherstone: If it should not be the case and the system should be unified, the Opposition had 13 years to change it.
Moving on to the substance of the matter, rather than unnecessary arguments, we need to monitor carefully the impact of the ban on wheel-clamping. However, in the absence of evidence that the ban will lead to a new breed of rogue ticketers who intimidate vulnerable motorists, I cannot commend the amendments and new clauses to the Committee. We need to see the effects of the ban. We have looked at the pilot in Scotland, and frankly there has not been evidence that revealed the sort of problems that Opposition Members are saying will arise.
That is not to say that I do not have some sympathy with certain elements of the amendments. Indeed, we should be flattered, because in some respects they borrow from the provisions in schedule 4. We recognise that in relation to the enforcement of parking on private land, the keeper liability provisions in the schedule represent a new departure, which the hon. Member for West Bromwich East mentioned earlier, when he asked why a keeper should have liability with local authorities when a driver has the right of appeal, as is the case now. It is a hybrid situation, which we will discuss when we come to the stand part debate for schedule 4. It is right to have safeguards for vehicle keepers, if we are bringing them into the frame.
In order for the vehicle keeper to be held liable for unpaid parking charges, certain conditions will have to be met. Some of those conditions touch on the issues covered in the amendments. For example, I draw the Committee’s attention to the second condition detailed in paragraph 6 of schedule 4. It requires that a notice must be given to the driver of a vehicle who is deemed by the parking provider to be in breach of contract and therefore liable for unpaid parking charges. That notice must, among other things, describe the circumstances in which the contract was formed. To do that, the parking provider will need to be able to point to signs in the parking area that give details of the contractual terms and conditions. If such signage is inadequate, the parking provider may not be able to establish, on the balance of probability, that a contract has been entered into by the driver. The notice also has to inform them of any arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints available to the driver; in effect, an appeals mechanism.

Tom Watson: On a point of clarification, when the Minister says, “If the signage is inadequate”, what items of data are required on a sign to make it adequate?

Lynne Featherstone: I will return to that point in a moment, because I do not have the list in front of me.
The amendments highlight the importance of the existence of such an appeals process when a motorist or registered keeper of a vehicle feels that the parking charge is unwarranted. That is the issue that has been raised: “It’s not fair. Who can I go to?” I fully understand hon. Members’ concerns, but I offer my reassurance that the Government share the desire to see an effective system for resolving disputes, and paragraph 6(2)(e) of schedule 4 is key to that.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North raised the issue of trade associations. The Government are working with the British Parking Association, which is currently the only accredited trade association in the field, to ensure that a robust and independent mechanism for handling disputes will be established. We are working closely with the BPA on how that system will be established and funded, and I offer this assurance: we will not commence schedule 4 unless and until a satisfactory disputes resolution procedure is in place.
We believe that working closely with the trade association in the establishment of the process will be better, because it will ensure the development of a fair system and will not impose the heavy weight of additional governmental regulation on the industry or cost on the taxpayer. It will be self-financed by the industry, as has been suggested by Opposition Members.

Tom Watson: Can the Minister confirm that the BPA regulations will not apply to car parking providers who choose not to join the BPA?

Lynne Featherstone: As far as I am aware, that is exactly the case. However, it strikes me that if a parking provider is not a member of the BPA, it will not have access to driver details from the DVLA, so it will be in its interest to leave the dark side and come into the light.

Diana Johnson: Will the Minister respond to my point about the statistic in the Home Office impact assessment that 90% of tickets will be paid under the new ticketing scheme? What incentive is there for a rogue wheel-clamping company that turns itself into a rogue ticketing company and imposes huge penalty fines on anyone who parks on private land to join the accredited trade association because, according to the impact assessment, 90% of the tickets will apparently be paid anyway, as people will feel that they have no other choice?

Lynne Featherstone: That is with the addition of keeper liability. I understand that the figure moves from 74% to 82%, so it is not regardless; it is with that addition.

Diana Johnson: They are still paying.

Lynne Featherstone: But an ex-rogue clamper that has become a rogue ticketer, who wants those tickets to receive the uplift, will get driver keeper information only by joining an accredited trade association, and at this point the only one is the British Parking Association.

Diana Johnson: This is a very interesting point. Keeper liability kicks in only if a ticket is not paid, when the parking company, if it is part of an accredited trade association, can go to the DVLA and get information about the keeper. The Minister is failing to address the problem that, as I understand it from the statistics in the Home Office impact assessment, if people drive on to private land and are given a ticket, either 75% or 90% of them will pay. It does not matter who the keeper is; the ticket is given to the driver, and it will be paid without the need for enforcement action. My point is why should a company bother to join an accredited trade association if it will get the bulk of its money from Joe Public? People will not have to give their keeper information; they will just pay the company, because it intimidates them or charges them huge fines, and they are worried.

Lynne Featherstone: Well, that is the situation today; 75% of tickets are paid now. I am saying that there will be an incentive for those rogue elements to become part of an accredited trade association, so that they can get the extra percentage. The rest will be governed by consumer law, and they may not receive anything because if someone drives off, they have no ability to find out who it was and the driver is away free.

Diana Johnson: They still pay.

Lynne Featherstone: Seventy-five per cent. pay, but if the driver drives off, the landowner has a redress—to get that keeper information—but only if they are a member of an accredited trade organisation.
May I return briefly to the hon. Member for West Bromwich East, who asked what needed to be on the sign for it to be adequate? It will be governed by normal contract law, which we are not seeking to change. Normally, the sign must clearly state the amount chargeable and be visible to drivers on entering the land, otherwise it may not be possible to deem that they have agreed to it.

Tom Watson: I am not a lawyer, but I think that the effect of what the Minister is telling me is that over time case law will determine what goes on the signs.

Lynne Featherstone: In the same way as at present, the process is governed by consumer law.
To return to what I was saying before the last round of interventions, we believe that working closely with the trade association will set up a fair system. As I said, the Government believe that business is the driver of economic growth and innovation. We need to cut red tape, not to introduce the huge swathes of regulation proposed by Opposition Members. We accept the need for some additional safeguards in the circumstances provided for in schedule 4. That is because it is a hybrid. We are cutting across the usual contractual relationship between the driver and the parking provider. In transferring liability for unpaid parking charges to the keeper when the driver is unknown, we need to ensure that proper protections are afforded to vehicle keepers. As I have said, beyond that change, the Government remain to be persuaded that the ban on wheel-clamping in itself justifies moving away from the normal operation of contract law in this area. We will keep the position under review and are ready to consider hard evidence of serious abuses, so as to justify statutory regulation. For now, however, I invite the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North to withdraw the amendment, although I understand that the hon. Lady wishes to press one amendment in the group to a Division.

Diana Johnson: I want to test the opinion of the Committee on amendment 106. Amendment 105 is a small amendment, but amendment 106 is where the meat is. At the appropriate time, I also want to press new clause 13 to a Division.
I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. It is important to recognise that the issues we are discussing today—on signage and the level of penalty that can be imposed—are the very things that the rogue wheel-clampers did not do properly either. The signage that wheel-clampers put up is often small and does not have all the information that a driver would need to know exactly what they were letting themselves in for. Those are the very points that people wanted to contribute to the consultation that brought forward regulation under the Crime and Security Act 2010. The Minister is making a big mistake by not identifying at this stage that some of the tactics used by the rogue wheel-clamping companies will transfer to rogue ticketing companies.
Rather than waiting, we have an opportunity to deal with the issue at the outset, to ensure that there is proper signage, that the penalty fees proposed by the companies are not excessive and are regulated and that consumers are treated fairly and properly. When the Bill becomes law, I am sure we will all see rogue wheel-clamping companies turn themselves into ticketing companies. It is naive not to expect that those companies will work on the basis that they get the bulk of their income from the general public being intimidated, feeling that they have to pay a fee up front, because they do not have a proper appeal process. That is the big problem. We are not learning the lessons of what happened with wheel-clamping. This is an opportunity to accept amendments that have the support of the general public; they want a clear appeals procedure, which is open to them if they want to pursue a claim. Consumer law has not protected the motorist on wheel-clamping and the provisions on signage and fee level, so I doubt it will offer the protection that the Minister thinks it will.
The Minister keeps saying, “Well, you had 13 years to do this. Why didn’t you do it?” What we in this Committee are all trying to do is to ensure that we get it right now, and that we deal with the issues of ticketing as we begin to understand that there will be problems. If they are not addressed in the Bill, coalition Government Ministers will have to deal with them in the future. Meanwhile, our constituents around the country will suffer from provisions that were not thought through and properly consulted on in the first place.

Lynne Featherstone: I think constituents all over the country will be happy that we are removing menacing rogue wheel-clampers and the intimidation that has gone on up and down the country. If the hon. Lady is worried about having to pay tickets up front to rogue ticketers, I can tell her that it is a darn sight less of a problem than having to pay up front to wheel-clampers.

Diana Johnson: We are not arguing that there is an issue with wheel-clamping that we want to address, but the Bill promoted by the coalition Government has not spoken to all the key stakeholders or gone through all the problems that are now being identified, such as those that arise around estates and near railway stations and underground stations in London. All of them are genuine issues that will have to be addressed.
It is unfortunate that the Minister is taking a blinkered approach. She seems to be saying that once we get rid of wheel-clamping, everything else will be fine. With the greatest of respect, a whole series of issues have been identified by key stakeholders—people who do such work day in, day out—as well as home owners, flat owners and businesses. They recognise that some issues need to be addressed. It is very unfortunate that the Minister is turning her face away from dealing with the practical issues that will arise day to day.

Lynne Featherstone: It is not matter of turning one’s face away. We have listened carefully to a whole range of stakeholders across the pale. The Opposition fail to grasp that the provisions are about removing the menace of rogue wheel-clampers. I asked the Committee at the beginning to concentrate on that. No one is saying that there will be no issues with ticketing, but the Bill will remove what has been an unacceptable and threatening scar on the business of parking. It is not that there will not be problems with ticketing, and we are listening and addressing those issues. What I am saying about all the suggestions for regulation and signage is that they will not be the first recourse, because from looking at Scotland, they have not been necessary—

Martin Caton: Order. Even Ministers’ interventions should not be this long.

Diana Johnson: I want to bring the debate to a conclusion, because it is clear that the coalition parties are failing to acknowledge the legitimate issues and grievances that a whole range of organisations, residents and other people have suggested and want addressed. The idea that any form of regulation will somehow damage the country is a blinkered approach to dealing with legitimate grievances and issues. That is unfortunate, so I would like to press amendment 106 to a vote.

Tom Watson: I have not been convinced by the moral relativism of the Minister’s argument. I grasp the fact that the provisions are about abolishing wheel-clamping, but given that the Minister has acknowledged that there will be problems with ticketing, I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to try to provide a remedy. I do not think that that is unacceptable, so I would like to press new clause 7 to a vote.
For the last decade, I have been reading Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflets that talk about cowboy clampers. I fear that for the next decade, we will be reading in those leaflets about the need to deal with terrible ticketers. I will not press the other new clauses, but would like to test new clause 7.

Martin Caton: That will be dealt with when we come to it.

Diana Johnson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 106, in clause56,page38,line27,at end insert—
‘(2) Recovery of unpaid parking charges shall be subject to the right of appeal.
(3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the purpose specified in subsection (4) in a case where, in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, a person attempts to claim unpaid parking charges from the driver or keeper of the vehicle.
(4) The purpose referred to in subsection (3) is to entitle a person to appeal against the parking charge which they believe has been enforced against them, either by way of a contract relating to parking or by way of Schedule 4.
(5) Regulations under this section shall specify the grounds on which an appeal may be made.
(6) The grounds may include in particular—
(a) a contravention of a code of practice issued by an Accredited Trade Association;
(b) contravention of any requirement imposed by or under this Act.
(7) Regulations under this section shall make provision for and in connection with the person to whom an appeal may be made.
(8) The person may in particular be—
(a) a person exercising functions of adjudication or the hearing of appeals under another enactment;
(b) a body established appointed by the Secretary of State under the regulations;
(c) an individual appointed under the regulations by the Secretary of State or by another person specified in the regulations.
(9) Regulations under this section may also include provision—
(a) as to the procedural conditions to be satisfied by a person before an appeal may be made;
(b) as to the payment of a fee by the appellant;
(c) as to the procedure (including time limits) for making an appeal;
(d) as to the minimum level of charge before an appeal may be brought;
(e) as to the procedure for deciding an appeal;
(f) as to the payment to the appellant by the respondent of—
(i) the charge against which the appeal is made;
(ii) other costs incurred by the appellant in consequence of the activity referred to in subsection (3);
(g) as to the payment by a party to an appeal of—
(i) costs of the other party in relation to the adjudication;
(ii) other costs in respect of the adjudication;
(h) as to the payment by the respondent to an appeal, in a case where the appeal is granted, of a charge in respect of the costs of adjudications under the regulations;
(i) as to the effect and enforcement of a decision of the person to whom an appeal is made—
(i) requiring or authorising the person to whom an appeal is made to provide information relating to the appeal to the authority;
(ii) to the effect that a person who makes a representation that is false in a material particular, and does so recklessly or knowing it to be false, commits an offence triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(10) The provision specified in paragraphs (e), (f) and (f)(i) of subsection (9) includes provision authorising the person to whom an appeal is made to require payment of the matters specified in those paragraphs.’.—(Diana Johnson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Diana Johnson: I shall be brief, because we have exhausted the issues that arise from clause 56 and subsequently from schedule 4. However, I again wish to raise with the Minister concerns about keeper liability, given that there is no proper mechanism for that keeper to have recourse to an appeal procedure. That is the fundamental problem with schedule 4.
We have discussed at length what happens on the public highway and the formal appeals that are available in that context to vehicle keepers in terms of their liability. It is just unfortunate that the Minister is creating this anomaly, whereby the keeper of a vehicle that is parked on private land has no formal recourse if enforcement action is taken. There are all sorts of issues about contractual obligations that are entered into by drivers and private landowners, and how they affect the keeper of a vehicle. I am sure that they will be open to legal challenge and will keep many of our legal friends very busy for some time. I ask the Minister to consider carefully the effect of schedule 4 in terms of the lack of natural justice of giving a responsibility to the vehicle keeper without giving them any rights to deal with ticketing that may have been used inappropriately, and so on.
I want to refer to Edmund King again. He talked about the example of a car that had entered a McDonald’s car park and then exited, but somehow it had been registered on the CCTV system that the car had never exited. Consequently the owner of the car—the vehicle keeper—was sent a ticket for the 41 days that the car had apparently been parked in the car park. Under the system set out in the Bill, there would be no right of appeal for that vehicle keeper and I want the Minister to respond to that particular case, because it seems a graphic example of how there would be unfairness in the system. How would that person seek redress under the new system?
Finally, can the Minister confirm the position that rental car companies are in regarding cars that they have rented out to drivers? What is their legal position? What can they do if they are served with enforcement notices for ticketing?

Lynne Featherstone: On that last point about vehicle hire companies and what happens if the vehicle that is ticketed is being hired at the time, the same provisions apply to a vehicle hire company as to any keeper. A vehicle hire company is in a good position to obtain payment from the hirer via the credit card details that the hirer provided when hiring the vehicle. So the person hiring the vehicle will be caught by that.
Paragraph 6(2)(e) requires the notice to the driver to include any arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints. They have to be notified. As I said earlier—perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North did not catch it—we will not be commencing the provisions under the schedule until an independent non-statutory appeals body is actually in place.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for reminding me of that point; it was helpful. The ticket is given to the driver of the vehicle where it is parked. How does that relate to the vehicle keeper being able to understand exactly what has happened? Will the hon. Lady explain?

Lynne Featherstone: If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will come back to that matter as I go through my explanation—just to finish off the day in an orderly way.
A landowner has the right to protect his or her land from uninvited parking—that is, trespass—or, if they choose, to make that land available to the public for parking on whatever terms and conditions he or she considers appropriate, given that it is private land, as long as those conditions comply with the law. As we discussed earlier, a £250 charge might well be considered disproportionate under consumer protection law. As long as there is no lawful authority to do so, once the provisions in clause 54 are in effect the landowner will not be able to immobilise or remove a vehicle if it has not been left in accordance with terms that are clearly signed on the land.
As for the keeper liability point, the Government have listened to the concerns of landowners that the removal of the ban on clamping and towing away will leave them more vulnerable to abuse by motorists. While the situation to date has been that private land is in that position, we have listened to the concerns expressed following the announcement of the intention to ban clamping and towing, and we agree that the landowner does need to be able to protect his land from trespass and to enforce the terms and conditions on which the land is made available for parking, either to the general public, or to a section of the public, such as customers or people with special requirements such as people with blue badges, to whom the hon. Lady referred, or to people who have paid a fee—whatever the condition is.
The Government have therefore decided that a landowner or their agent should have the right to hold the keeper of the vehicle responsible, so that there is an ultimate backstop to a non-paying driver who just drives off; and it is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that that person is the registered keeper and will be liable for any unpaid charges for which the driver would have been liable, if they are unable or unwilling to identify the driver. The keeper may, of course, have been the driver, but currently in many circumstances it is not possible for the landowner to trace the driver, and if keepers deny that they were the driver at the time, whether they were or were not, and refuse to say who was driving at the time, the landowner has no means of recourse.
However, it is important to note that the keeper will be liable only in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are important and they are clearly set out in the schedule. As for how the keeper would know, we would expect adequate information to be provided to the keeper. Where the parking provider seeks to pursue the keeper for unpaid parking charges, that would be part of what has to be provided to the keeper when explaining the reason for the charge. After we have finished our proceedings in Committee, we shall reflect on whether we need to say more about such matters in the schedule.
I wish to set out the circumstances set out in the schedule. Under paragraph 1, the driver of the vehicle would have been required to pay the parking-related charges because of a contract, whether implicit or explicit. That means that the provisions can only apply to two types of case. The first kind of case is where there is a contract that permits the parking, whether or not for a charge, and which sets out the terms, including any charge for overstaying. An example would be, “Parking beyond 2 hours attracts a £100 charge”. The second kind of case in schedule 4 is intended to cover circumstances where parking is not permitted at all and there is a clear sign to that effect, which also states what the charge will be for unauthorised parking or trespass, such as “No parking is allowed—fee £100 for unauthorised parking”. The provisions of the schedule cannot be used where there is no sign at all. That remains a matter for the law of tort.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 define the terms used in the schedule. The circumstances are set out further in paragraph 3(3), because existing provisions, such as those in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, already impose a liability for parking, and under those provisions, a vehicle keeper is liable for any unpaid parking-related charges, so the provisions in the schedule would be unnecessary where the circumstances are already covered by other legislation. Paragraph 3(3) sets out where the schedule will not apply because circumstances are already covered by current legislation.

Diana Johnson: I am very grateful to the Minister for setting that out in so much detail. Will she point me to the part of the schedule that deals with signage? I notice that there are detailed provisions on the notice that must be given to the driver, but I am struggling to find the provision on signage.

Lynne Featherstone: I will come back to that.
Paragraph 4 sets out that the provisions in the schedule do not apply if the vehicle has been stolen at the time, but it will be for the vehicle keeper to show that that was the case. Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) state how the keeper may prove that a vehicle is stolen. Paragraph 4 also provides that landowner may recover only the amount set out in the notice to the driver, so they cannot up the ante by the time they get to the driver. Paragraph 4 states that the rights of the landowner, or his or her agent, as set out in schedule 4, do not affect any other remedy that the landowner or the agent has to recover the amount due, but the landowner may recover the amount only once.
Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 set out the remaining circumstances. The keeper can be held liable only if there is an implicit or explicit contract for the driver to pay but the landowner, or his agent, does not know who the driver is, or where he or she lives.
Under paragraph 6, as a minimum, the notice to a driver must state when, where and how the parking offence took place, how much is due, any discount for prompt payment of the charge, how and to whom payment may be made, and the time and date when the notice was issued.
We are aware that one of the concerns about the schedule, which has also been raised today, is that it does not provide for an independent body to which motorists may turn for redress if they are unhappy about the way in which the landowner, or his agent, has dealt with the matter. The Government share that concern but are not convinced that such a body should be statutory, and consider that it is not right for them to establish such a body at the expense of the taxpayer.
It is pretty common, throughout the commercial sector, to have a sector-wide body, which all responsible members of the sector support financially, as Opposition Members have said, and whose decisions they abide by. That is exactly what is happening in the parking sector; such a body is being established as we speak. We will provide, therefore, that the notice must also specify any arrangements for the resolution of challenges to tickets that are available by the independent body as well as the organisation itself. I know that the Committee has genuine concerns about the matter, but I assure hon. Members that the provisions in the schedule for keeper liability will not be brought into force until that body is established and is operating across the country. This is the sort of light-touch regulation that the Government do wish to promote.
To return to the last point, the keeper will be liable only if the driver would be liable. Whether the driver is liable depends on contract law. That is reflected in paragraph 6(2)(b), which refers to what the driver has to pay.

Diana Johnson: I am sorry, was that the point about signage? I am confused. From what the Minister has said, I understand that if someone drives on to land that they should not be driving on to, there will be a sign saying either, “You can’t park here”, or “You can park here for 2 hours and after that there is a £100 fine.” Where is that stated in the schedule? I am struggling to find it.

Lynne Featherstone: That is the situation that exists today. There must be a sign as someone drives on to private land for there to be deemed to be a contract. That will still apply under consumer protection law.

Diana Johnson: I am sorry to push this, but I want to be clear. Will the Minister tell me in which Act of Parliament I can find that? I want to ensure that I fully understand what she is saying.

Lynne Featherstone: Rather than guess which of two Acts it is, I shall write to the hon. Lady. [ Interruption. ] It is contract law, which is common law.

Diana Johnson: With the greatest respect, the Minister said that she would go through the schedule so that we could all understand its provisions. She referred specifically to signage. I am pressing the point because I want to know the basis for that signage. Among the things that came out of the Crime and Security Act 2010 were provisions on proper signage, and one of our amendments is about signage.

Lynne Featherstone: This is about liability. Paragraph 6(2) of the schedule is about what must be included in the notice. [ Interruption. ] The notice is different from the sign in the car park. That comes under contract law; this is about keeper liability—when the driver is liable and when the keeper becomes liable, and the conditions that apply in those circumstances. The driver has 28 days to pay before the landowner can transfer the charge to the keeper.

Diana Johnson: I do not wish to pursue this. Will the Minister write to me explaining clearly how it will work? I understand the notice, but I am struggling with the signage.

Lynne Featherstone: I am happy to do that. I am sorry if it seems unclear, but they are two separate things. Furthermore, I assure the Committee that the provisions of schedule 4 will not come into force until that body is established.
Perhaps most importantly in view of the concerns expressed that these provisions could amount to a rogue’s charter, it has been the practice of the DVLA to release vehicle keeper details only to those organisations that are members of Government-accredited trade associations. As I said, the BPA is currently the only one. To retain membership of the accredited trade association, organisations must abide by the association’s code of practice, which is strictly enforced. I understand that five organisations have already lost BPA membership, and are no longer able to obtain keeper details from the DVLA. The ability to obtain those details is important; unlike the hon. Lady, I think that such organisations will have an incentive to become members of the BPA.
It is the mandatory code of practice that goes with membership of the BPA that provides the essential self-regulation that makes unnecessary the fully regulated system proposed by the Opposition and that some commentators have called for. The provisions of the schedule are a way of making the industry self-regulatory.
The provisions of schedule 4 apply to those Crown vehicles that must be registered at the DVLA, and to public servants who are the keepers of such vehicles, but they do not apply to vehicles of the armed forces or of visiting forces.
Finally, the schedule contains powers under which regulations or orders may be made to amend the definition in the schedule of a “traffic authority” and to change the circumstances under which keeper liability applies. The power to make secondary legislation therefore enables the Government to adjust the provisions if that should prove necessary in the light of experience. I hope that the Committee will agree to the schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jeremy Wright.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 3 May at half-past Ten o’clock.